Skip to comments.Live Blog: Obama Health Law at the Supreme Court, Day 3
Posted on 03/28/2012 8:36:39 AM PDT by katieanna
The Supreme Court on Wednesday is entering the last of its three days of arguments over the Obama health-care law, with justices set to weigh what happens to the rest of the overhaul if the court strikes down the requirement that individuals carry health insurance. We have reporters at the court, who are sending in updates on the action. The morning session started at 10 a.m. ET, and the afternoon session starts at 1 p.m.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
This is the critical decision. Notice how the liberal “Justices” are all in a flurry. If they strike down the individual mandate but leave the rest, then we are toast.
There was no severability clause in the bill. They put one in, but then they took it out. Notice that the slime justices are trying to get around this by asking what was congresses “real intent”?
That’s activist language. Not what did the Founders actually say in the Constitution, but what did they secretly MEAN, reading their minds? What did congress secretly MEAN by failing to include a severability clause.
To hell with that. No severability clause—the whole thing should go down, and let congress start over again.
I agree with you. It is not the job of the judicial branch of government to legislate.
If I’m not mistaken, because the Dems didn’t plan on Scott Brown getting elected, they didn’t “touch up” the bill like they would have and didn’t put in the severability (sp?) clause. There was something about they thought the other house would have changes and put that in but they never got a chance.
I thought that because of that, if part is found un-Constitutional, all of it has to get thrown out, right? I could be wrong, I’m just asking if someone else knows about this......
I would agree, but I don’t think they can rule on a congressional process unless it’s written down and codified.
In any case, the bill was not even read. That suggests that Congress didn’t even know what it was passing.
Therefore, strike it all down.
Without the mandate, there is not funding.
Congress would have to raise taxes to fill in the huge shortfall left without the mandate. There’s no way the House would pass taxes to fund this and I doubt the Senate could as well, so Reid won’t even bring it up for a vote.
Romney has said that if the bill is not struck down, one of his first acts if elected would be to grant all 50 states waivers from complying with the bill.
If the mandate is struck down and the rest of the bill stands, it is still untenable. How could Obama run on health care if it means no end in sight for the taxes needed to fund it? He’d be a sitting duck.
My thinking (may be wrong) is that if the mandate is nixed, no matter what is decided about the remainder of the bill, it is dead because it can’t be implemented.
funny how Sotomayor doesn’t want to leave abortion in the hands of the people.
I’d have loved for one of the conservatives to bring that up.
What? Like the latter day Chicoms???
exactly. to me the fact that Congress didn’t include the severability clause decides the case. the argument should have lasted about 30 seconds. Clement gets up and says “May it please the Court, this law has no severability clause, In fact, Congress specifically passed it knowing it lacked one. Further, it did have one origianlly and they removed it and passed the law without it. End of story. I reserve the balance of my time”
Also, Clement may have well locked down a SC appt of his own with this case.
“How could Obama run on health care if it means no end in sight for the taxes needed to fund it? Hed be a sitting duck.”
He’ll have a new crisis to run on. It’s being cooked up now. Economy or Middle East - blame Bush.
A CNN/Fortune senior editor has a ‘Goebbels Moment’ about the arguments:
I love this post #160 on the other thread - this is about Justice Kennedy-
“Kennedy says Kneedler suggests court has expertise to invalidate some of law but not to judge whether rest says in place”
So, if I read this correctly, Kennedy points out that the government is suggesting that the SC has expertise to invalidate some of the law but NOT to judge the fate of the rest of it. ??
Am I reading this correctly?
Who wrote 0bamacare? If this thing is so great why hasn’t there been ANY discussion of it’s authors? Max “The Marxist” Baucus wrote part of it, Soros-funded ‘Center For American Progress’ wrote some of it.. The media has bent over backwards to NOT talk about this.. Gee, it’s almost as if the media hides disclosure of it’s authors in order to hide it’s MARXIST FOUNDATIONS. IT’S A MARXIST DOCTRINE AUTHORIZING THE GOV’TS THEFT OF ONE-SIXTH OF AMERICA’S ECONOMY FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and sneakily takes full control of students (student loans), implements dhimmitude, and other nonsense not relating to health care.
where do you get that idea from, health insurance co were doing fine before obamacare
The law is far too broad and far reaching to allow any part to stand without the mandate. Kennedy said such would be ‘extremely’ irrational.
Kennedy was likely just giving Kneedler a chance for clrification.
It is perfectly normal to strike down only part of a law that doesn’t have a severability clause- when it can be done.
The argument, of course, is over whether this is such a case.
ALL of 0bamacare should be VOIDED if the mandate is stricken. 0BAMACARE ITSELF MAKES NO PROVISION FOR SEVERABILITY, SO IT MUST BE STRICKEN ALL TOGETHER. The Democrats passed it this way, so.. SO BE IT, GENIUSES!
You do read correctly. I submit that passage of this law is not only a ‘step too far’ but a ‘marathon too far’, as is everything Obama does. He is SUCH a severe radical that even the liberals on the Court have to go a far ways to agree. I further submit the vote to strike mandate will be greater than 5-4.
The people indeed. In almost three days of proceedings, not a single word or reference to the Ninth Amendment and its sister clause, Necessary and Proper.
If Obamacare is necessary, (it isn't) it still does not pass the proper provision, for it is a bold faced assault on our natural right to select and contract for medical services.